Yeah? So you need guys who don't have their head in the cloud to be able to connect all the terminology with actual formations and execution, don't cha?

It's more than terminology...

It's an understanding of how things work.

For instance...

A coach is still a human. They are only going to cover so much. In a game there are unexpected things that happen. When you are in practice or in a game you need to be able to 1) ask questions/voice concerns and also be able to help coming up with solutions

It's impossible to ask legitimate questions AND be able to help come up with solutions (in practice or in the game on the fly) if you don't have an understanding of how the puzzle pieces are supposed to fit.

And that goes for more than just the QB although they do obviously have the most on their plate.

If you're running a play, you have to know what you're trying to do as an offense and also how the defense is likely to respond. For example, the offense I ran in highschool was pretty much the Texans offense except we ran the option. As an OT I knew that teams were going to try their hardest to stop our outside zone....As soon as I took my step to hook the DE the LB and DE would damn near turn and run to the sideline so they could get the outside contained...

So one thing I started doing was when we ran inside zone plays I'd fake an outside zone step (bucket step, drop step...whatever terminology you use) and the DE and LB would jump way outside and then all of a sudden the RB is going inside through a gaping hole...Not only did I set them up on that play, but now when we are really running outside, I'll be able to hook them better because they are now worried that the ball may actually be going inside.

That's just something simple, but thats just one example of why you'd want guys that are familiar with certain schemes because they have an understanding of how things fit within a certain play and also within the grand scheme of things. My coach didn't tell me to do that...That was just something I picked up on...The better/smarter players are the ones that can pick up on things like that during the course of a game/career/season....You have to go beyond coaching and that is where being familar with a certain scheme and already know stuff would come in handy...

A QB's familiarity with the offense would mean he has some idea of how his footwoork needs to be, how important certain aspects are (like the fakes), how the defense will react to certain things...How certain routes should develop against certain coverages...

The terminology is a small aspect because many coaches use different terminology...Hell, in the NFL guys are so smart and so in tune to what's going on that I'd imagine most of the better teams even change the terms they'll use to make calls from series to series...

Sorry for the long reply...but yeah...It's more than the terminology in regards to familiarity...It's about understanding...

A coach is still a human. They are only going to cover so much. In a game there are unexpected things that happen. When you are in practice or in a game you need to be able to 1) ask questions/voice concerns and also be able to help coming up with solutions

It's impossible to ask legitimate questions AND be able to help come up with solutions (in practice or in the game on the fly) if you don't have an understanding of how the puzzle pieces are supposed to fit.

And that goes for more than just the QB although they do obviously have the most on their plate.

If you're running a play, you have to know what you're trying to do as an offense and also how the defense is likely to respond. For example, the offense I ran in highschool was pretty much the Texans offense except we ran the option. As an OT I knew that teams were going to try their hardest to stop our outside zone....As soon as I took my step to hook the DE the LB and DE would damn near turn and run to the sideline so they could get the outside contained...

So one thing I started doing was when we ran inside zone plays I'd fake an outside zone step (bucket step, drop step...whatever terminology you use) and the DE and LB would jump way outside and then all of a sudden the RB is going inside through a gaping hole...Not only did I set them up on that play, but now when we are really running outside, I'll be able to hook them better because they are now worried that the ball may actually be going inside.

That's just something simple, but thats just one example of why you'd want guys that are familiar with certain schemes because they have an understanding of how things fit within a certain play and also within the grand scheme of things. My coach didn't tell me to do that...That was just something I picked up on...The better/smarter players are the ones that can pick up on things like that during the course of a game/career/season....You have to go beyond coaching and that is where being familar with a certain scheme and already know stuff would come in handy...

A QB's familiarity with the offense would mean he has some idea of how his footwoork needs to be, how important certain aspects are (like the fakes), how the defense will react to certain things...How certain routes should develop against certain coverages...

The terminology is a small aspect because many coaches use different terminology...Hell, in the NFL guys are so smart and so in tune to what's going on that I'd imagine most of the better teams even change the terms they'll use to make calls from series to series...

Sorry for the long reply...but yeah...It's more than the terminology in regards to familiarity...It's about understanding...

I really enjoy your post Rey, so it's probably best for me not to bring up any other point at the moment.

Sometimes, I find it best to just appreciate the moment.
I got one today, thanks to you.

I believe with the circumstances that have occurred in the past five weeks, this Sunday will define Matt Schaub more than anything else in his career. He's waited a long time to play in the playoffs. What a great way to see who Schaub is by returning to the house of the kings that ended in disaster five weeks ago.

When I think of clutch, I think of a quarterback who can be counted on to go out there and get that critical 3rd down and set up a score when the team needs it. Turnovers in the second half, particularly the fourth-quarter of a close game, are killers. At the very least, that is the unclutch of the NFL. Eli Manning comes to mind when I think of clutch. Statistically a decent regular season quarterback, but seemingly a man amongst men in the biggest games of his career at the most crucial times.

We haven’t seen Matt Schaub play a good team since week 6 in Baltimore last year. If you recall the Texans did not score a point in the fourth-quarter. PK quoted some stupid games if you ask me. What I recall most of Schaub and pondering the question of whether he is clutch or not is the 4th quarter of the Saints game last year. After the Texans defense did wonders in the first half by holding the Saints offensive machine to 10 points, they subsequently crumbled in the second half, particularly the fourth-quarter.

Or rather, did Drew Brees come up “clutch” in the second half? On the five drives New Orleans had in the fourth-quarter, the Saints produced three touchdowns, one punt, and one kneel-down to end the game. Meanwhile the Texans had four full drives in the fourth-quarter with one three-and-out, one three play drive ending in an interception, one touchdown, and a four play drive resulting in a game ending turnover on downs.

This is the drive chart of both teams in the 4th quarter, minus the Texans TD scored on the first play of the fourth-quarter. The Texans are white and the Saints are black.

I know Schaub has no direct control over how good or bad the Texans defense was, but he did give the defense a nine point lead to start the fourth-quarter (it was 26-17 when the Saints got their first offensive drive in the 4th quarter).

However, this is when I question Matt Schaub being clutch. The Texans just received the ball leading 26-24 with nine minutes left. Kubiak (or somebody) called three straight passes, with the third pass being a deep 3rd and 10 pass for Andre Johnson that was intercepted by a defender underneath of Johnson. Maybe somebody with nfl.com’s coachs film could tell me, but it appeared that Schaub didn’t see him?

I hate playing what-if’s, but even Walters touchdown bounce in the fourth-quarter should have been an interception. If the Saints turn the ball over just once in the fourth-quarter of that game, the Texans chances of winning that game increases dramatically. Unfortunately for Texans fans the Super Bowl MVP never faltered once (in the 4th).

Teams have their good days and their bad days. Drew Brees could not get it done Sunday against the Redskins. Does that make him less clutch or not clutch anymore? In the five drives that the Saints had in the fourth-quarter, the Saints produced one three-and-out, two touchdowns, and two interceptions. With 3:40 left in the game and the Saints down by 8, Brees throws an interception returned to the Saints 3 yard line and put the nail in the coffin. Does that take away from the fact that Brees was clutch in week 3 versus the Houston Texans? Hell, Eli Manning couldn’t come back against the Cowboys last week. And there’s certainly no Drive by Elway without Byner’s fumble. *end of rambling*

No team wins every game. Even quarterbacks who are constantly associated with clutch are not clutch sometimes. Are the quarterbacks coming back from behind because they were bad in the first half? Perhaps some quarterbacks seem to be more clutch than others simply because they are getting more chances at game-winning drives. Some however just seem destined to fail. Eli Manning's antithesis Tony Romo makes me cringe in the fourth-quarter. It always seems like Romo...Cowboys...find a way to lose a close game. However, Romo has the highest fourth-quarter passing rating among active quarterbacks. Statistics can be so clutch.

Is Schaub clutch to me? Should we even care? What if Schaubs not considered a clutch quarterback because he's so efficient at getting his team a halftime lead that there are rarely moments for him to shine in the fourth quarter. At the very moment in a fourth-quarter when Schaub is facing 3rd and long and the defense is blitzing, are you turning in your stomach or cheering with confidence? I still do not know if I believe in clutch. But then I see things in the NFL and I find myself saying, "Man, that was clutch!"

Remember when Schaub led the Texans back from a 21-point second half deficit against the Ravens two Decembers ago, only to throw a pick six in overtime. Was that clutch and then…not clutch?

Does clutch even exist?

Are you kidding me?!?! Mat Schaub is not a big time QB and he's not a clutch player either. Come man! I love the Texan but they have 3 major issues: Number 1: Matt Schaub
number 2: Other than Kus their linebackers are not good.
3. Gary K and Rick S and not good talent evaluators. Look and the talents we let go for nothing.

Are you kidding me?!?! Mat Schaub is not a big time QB and he's not a clutch player either. Come man! I love the Texan but they have 3 major issues: Number 1: Matt Schaub
number 2: Other than Kus their linebackers are not good.
3. Gary K and Rick S and not good talent evaluators. Look and the talents we let go for nothing.

The better an organization is at talent evaluation, the more talent it will release to the NFL. It is a good sign that the Texans have more quality player than they can protect.

Regarding Schaub, I'm not sure where this myth developed that he's not clutch. Let's not rip a guy who has never lost a playoff game, has won 20 of his last 27 games, and has orchestrated a number of 4th quarter comebacks as being a "choker". Peyton, for instance, gave away the game yesterday as his playoff record fell to 9 wins and 11 losses. It's not easy to win in the playoffs. Other than Tom Brady, Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, and Bart Starr, every quarterback in the history of the NFL has compiled a record that could be considered "unclutch".

I'm amazed at the length of this thread. I figured it'd died into the night after two pages and everyone would go home and come to their senses. But I guess either this forum is short on realists or maybe OJ really is innocent from his crime.

Schaub hasn't even proven himself to be a consistent winner in this league yet. But to ask if he's clutch? That's like asking yourself if you need running shoes when you haven't gotten used to walking yet.